SF Bay Area Indymedia indymedia
Indybay About Contact Newsletter Calendar Publish Community

Santa Cruz Indymedia | Government & Elections | Police State and Prisons

Letter to Mayor Mike Rotkin For A Resolution in Support of Wikileaks & Whistleblowers
by Robert Norse
Thursday Dec 9th, 2010 12:17 PM
I sent the following e-mail to outgoing Mayor Mike Rotkin (a new Mayor will be chosen on December 14th). I enclosed a S.F. Chron story about the Berkeley City Council considering a resolution backing Bradley Manley, the whistleblower behind the Wikileaks revelations. My letter urges Rotkin to propose a Resolution supporting Manley, Assange, & Wikileaks at the Tuesday Council meeting.

Rotkin can also be reached at mrotkin [at] cityofsantacruz.com. The entire City Council can be e-mailed at cityycouncil [at] cityofsantacruz.com
From: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
To: openup [at] ucsc.edu
CC: cityycouncil [at] cityofsantacruz.com; meadowwolf [at] baymoon.com; becky_johnson222 [at] hotmail.com; spleich [at] gmail.com; parnold [at] bridgemysteries.com
Subject: Introduce an Emergency Resolution Supporting the Rights of Journalists (Wikileaks) and Whistleblowers (Bradley Manning)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 11:03:03 -0800

Mike: Berkeley City Council (see somewhat slanted story below) is, as you probably know, considering a resolution supporting Manning, the patriot accused of doing a Daniel Ellsberg-style massive leak of incriminating documents. Reversing the war and repression hysteria in this country needs to be one of our local priorities as well. Please introduce a resolution urging an end to the As Mayor and elder parliamentarian, you are in a particularly strong position to do this.

It would also be timely to present a resolution supporting Julian Assange, considering the unprecedented world-wide attack on him.

Since your Democratic Party colleagues seem more interested in expanding rather than ending the criminal aggression abroad and the National Security State at home, it looks like we have to rely on individuals like Manley, Assange, and Wikileaks--and the ultimate outrage of the American people. If you won't defend groups trying to expose the war crimes, how about defending freedom of the press?

As a last act before leaving office, it would show some real courage (even if you weren't successful) and give pause to your critics on the left. You know it's the right thing to do.

Please don't tell me you can't add this to the agenda as an emergency item (since that is what would be needed at this late point). If legalizing juggling was an "emergency" (which you did in the summer of 2003), this certainly qualifies.

I'm cc-ing and bcc-ing this e-mail to various people in hopes that they'll join me in urging you to take immediate action before you retire from the Council.

Robert




Alleged leaker Bradley Manning: hero to Berkeley?

Carolyn Jones, Chronicle Staff Writer
San Francisco Chronicle
Wednesday, December 8, 2010

AP

Pfc. Bradley Manning faces 52 years in prison if convicted.

An Army private jailed for allegedly leaking sensitive military data is a hero and should be freed, according to a resolution under consideration by the Berkeley City Council.

The council is expected to vote Tuesday on whether to declare its support for Pfc. Bradley Manning, who's suspected of providing WikiLeaks with classified military documents and a video depicting an Army helicopter attack in Baghdad in which 11 civilians were killed.

Manning, 22, currently in the brig in Quantico, Va., faces 52 years in prison if convicted. Manning has not commented on his guilt or innocence.

"If he did what he's accused of doing, he's a patriot and should get a medal," said Bob Meola, the Berkeley peace and justice commissioner who authored the resolution. "I think the war criminals should be the ones prosecuted, not the whistle-blowers."

The proposed resolution originated from the same commission that declared the Marine Corps "unwanted intruders" in Berkeley in 2008. The council's ensuing approval - and reversal - ignited some of the city's most raucous protest in years and prompted more than 25,000 e-mails to City Hall.

This time, however, the commission's vote was not unanimous. The resolution passed on a 7-3 vote, and it's likely to be just as contentious when it meets the City Council.

Commissioner Thyme Siegel was one of the three "no" votes.

"We're just sitting here in Berkeley - we don't know that Afghani informants aren't being murdered because of these leaks," she said. "Bradley Manning sounds like a very sincere person, but I'm sorry, we really do have enemies, and it's not clear at all what the effects of these WikiLeaks are."

WikiLeaks is a website that has published thousands of classified documents about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Manning allegedly provided WikiLeaks with secret data, including the 2007 "collateral murder" video of the Baghdad helicopter attack.

Berkeley's proposed resolution thanks Manning "for his courage in bringing the truth to the American people and the people of the world."

Army officials had no comment on Berkeley's resolution, but said that leaking classified data can endanger the lives of informants, provide useful information to the enemy and undermine the trust of those working with the military, according to Department of Defense spokesman Bob Mehal.

Manning might be a hero, but Berkeley should back off until the issues are sorted through on a national level, said peace and justice commissioner Jane Litman, who abstained from the Manning vote.

"I don't think we should call him a hero for something he hasn't even said he's done," she said. "Manning and the Obama administration both need to clarify their positions on this before we can take a stand."

E-mail Carolyn Jones at carolynjones [at] sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page C - 5 of the San Francisco Chronicle


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/12/07/BAL91GNB87.DTL#ixzz17dszDVWy

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by FedUp !
Thursday Dec 9th, 2010 4:14 PM
I support Wikileaks but I don't support The Chronicle or their website and any hits to their website gives them business. I have many reasons for disliking the right-wing Chronicle and their website (their message forum is one of the most rabidly hateful anywhere). My most recent reason for boycotting them is this:

Chronicle’s Coverage of Sit/Lie Prompts a Question
Opponents of Prop. L say they struggled to be heard and accuse the city’s largest newspaper of tipping its coverage in favor of the measure
http://www.baycitizen.org/columns/scott-james/chronicles-coverage-sit-lie-prompts/

by Steven Argue
Friday Dec 10th, 2010 3:42 PM
Free Bradley Manning and Julian Assange now! Hands off WikiLeaks!

U.S. hands off Iran! All U.S. and allied troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan!

The documents released describe in nightmarish detail the torture of detainees, executions at U.S. checkpoints as well as the sectarian carnage unleashed by the occupation—atrocities started under the Bush administration and continued without respite under the “reduced” occupation force of Barack Obama. This is all under the rule of the political party of Mike Rotkin who uses the local police against meaningful attempts at change in Santa Cruz. Don't beg that useless defender of the status quo for a resolution, let's organize a protest.

Steven Argue

Liberation News
https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

Well, Steve, with only four days left in public office, it's hard to resist a chance for a final shot at your sectarian stupidity. What is the logic of wanting so badly to attack me that you can't even let yourself join an attempt to build a bigger response on issues where we do agree, as in the case of defending wikiLeaks. So much more satisfying, apparently, to have a good protest than to be effective in actually impacting policy and outcomes in the real world where everyone else lives.


And while I am at it, what exactly have the local police done to stop "meaningful social change in Santa Cruz?" I think the problem might have more to do with your not having been successful in persuading a significant portion of the local population, much less a majority, to join you in your views on hardly anything. Happy Holidays!
by Robert Norse
Friday Dec 10th, 2010 4:30 PM
So, Mike, are you introducing the requested resolution?
by Gonna Miss You
Friday Dec 10th, 2010 4:51 PM
HA! Let Steve have it, good for you!
by Steven Argue
Friday Dec 10th, 2010 5:42 PM
Mike, you make many claims, but they are all disconnected from reality.

Remember that speech of mine you interrupted? The one where I called for a higher minimum wage in Santa Cruz? I do. You claimed that it was legally impossible for a municipality to raise the minimum wage and you went on to claim that if you could, the City Council would have done it long ago. Both points were lies. This was proven when a proposition for a higher minimum wage in Santa Cruz was put on the city ballot and your rightwing friends at the Santa Cruz Sentinel campaigned against it.

And then you pretend to be pro-worker and pro-union. Sorry, but if it’s sectarian to expose your lies and actions, I’m proud to be sectarian.

So I’m supposed to feel good about a Mayor who talks nice and progressive, but who in reality pursues rightwing anti-working class and pro-police-state measures? And to do otherwise is sectarian?

Your police, with your backing, have harassed, jailed, and brutalized anti-war activists, activists
for Mumia Abu Jamal, activists for homeless rights, activists against police brutality, organizers of parades, and activists simply for feeding the poor. Likewise, your police, with your backing, harass, intimidate, and jail people for being poor.

And then you have the nerve to talk about me being sectarian and pretend you are making “meaningful social change”. Sure, you’ve made meaningful social change, like the law that makes it illegal for the homeless to sleep at night, but none of your meaningful change has been good.

It is activists who have put their asses on the line who, unlike you, have made meaningful social change for the better. Activists like Sandy Loranger who did time for feeding people soup. When the judge offered her counseling instead of jail Sandy Loranger replied, "If feeding my fellow man is a crime I am beyond rehabilitation."

You can pretend that your cushy job and undeserved status have something to do with making “meaningful social change”, but the people are getting tired of those kinds of lies being issued from the mayor’s office all the way up to the White House, and one day we will rise up against you. Democrat and Republican alike, from the mayor’s office to your pro-war friend in oval office.

So you claim that we agree on the issues of freeing Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. Yet that’s hardly true when it is your party, the Democrat Party, that is waging these wars and their government that is prosecuting Bradley Manning. If you want to split with them on this issue, feel free to introduce the proposed emergency resolution. I will even defend you on that issue. But I’m not holding my breath waiting for it to happen. Feel free to prove me wrong. There are protests all over the world against these prosecutions; it wouldn’t hurt your fake leftist credentials to join in on those too rather than simply attacking a proposal for protest in your own pro-establishment sectarian manner.
by Kudos to You
Friday Dec 10th, 2010 5:51 PM
And as for you Steven?

Same. Old. Tired. Rhetoric. From a punch-and-run-punk.

The "people" you speak of have spoken via our vote...and we didn't and don't want you..we want and wanted Mike.

Reality stings, don't it?
by Steven Argue
Friday Dec 10th, 2010 6:17 PM
This sentence in response to Mike Rotkin should have read:

"This was proven when a proposition for a higher minimum wage in Santa Cruz was put on the city ballot and you and your rightwing friends at the Santa Cruz Sentinel campaigned against it."



Mike, you make many claims, but they are all disconnected from reality.

Remember that speech of mine you interrupted? The one where I called for a higher minimum wage in Santa Cruz? I do. You claimed that it was legally impossible for a municipality to raise the minimum wage and you went on to claim that if you could, the City Council would have done it long ago. Both points were lies. This was proven when a proposition for a higher minimum wage in Santa Cruz was put on the city ballot and you and your rightwing friends at the Santa Cruz Sentinel campaigned against it.

And then you pretend to be pro-worker and pro-union. Sorry, but if it’s sectarian to expose your lies and actions, I’m proud to be sectarian.

So I’m supposed to feel good about a Mayor who talks nice and progressive, but who in reality pursues rightwing anti-working class and pro-police-state measures? And to do otherwise is sectarian?

Your police, with your backing, have harassed, jailed, and brutalized anti-war activists, activists
for Mumia Abu Jamal, activists for homeless rights, activists against police brutality, organizers of parades, and activists simply for feeding the poor. Likewise, your police, with your backing, harass, intimidate, and jail people for being poor.

And then you have the nerve to talk about me being sectarian and pretend you are making “meaningful social change”. Sure, you’ve made meaningful social change, like the law that makes it illegal for the homeless to sleep at night, but none of your meaningful change has been good.

It is activists who have put their asses on the line who, unlike you, have made meaningful social change for the better. Activists like Sandy Loranger who did time for feeding people soup. When the judge offered her counseling instead of jail Sandy Loranger replied, "If feeding my fellow man is a crime I am beyond rehabilitation."

You can pretend that your cushy job and undeserved status have something to do with making “meaningful social change”, but the people are getting tired of those kinds of lies being issued from the mayor’s office all the way up to the White House, and one day we will rise up against you and your ilk, Democrat and Republican alike, from the mayor’s office to your pro-war friend in oval office.

So you claim that we agree on the issues of freeing Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. Yet that’s hardly true when it is your party, the Democrat Party, that is waging these wars and their government that is prosecuting Bradley Manning. If you want to split with them on this issue, feel free to introduce the proposed emergency resolution. I will even defend you on that issue. But I’m not holding my breath waiting for it to happen. Feel free to prove me wrong. There are protests all over the world against these prosecutions; it wouldn’t hurt your fake leftist credentials to join in on those too.
by What part wasn't understood?
Saturday Dec 11th, 2010 12:17 AM
"Same. Old. Tired. Rhetoric. From a punch-and-run-punk. "

Steven, you couldn't have validated my prior post with your repreat post if I'd of written it myself. Yawwwnnn.....put down Mao's book, the game is over.
by Frank Runninghorse
Saturday Dec 11th, 2010 7:57 AM
Brother Steve

Thanks for keeping me informed. SDS is also supporting Bradley Manning. Your response to the mayor was right on. That's called "holding their feet to the fire". The fact that the mayor would even engage in debate with you shows, you're a force to be reckoned with in Santa Cruz. Keep up the good work. Keep telling the truth.

I'm glad you pointed out some of the relevant data in the Wiki leaks that many of us were unaware of. I was just talking to our comrade Larry Pinkney about this the other day. Could you point us to a source or an article that boiled down some of the pertinent facts you mentioned?

Frank Little Lives

Frank Runninghorse
DVC SDS, Community Advisor
Oscar Grant Committee to Stop Police Brutality & State Repression ,
Member Contra Costa Co. Peace & Freedom Party co-chair

Frank Little Club alumni


PS ; Brother Argue did 6 months in jail for stopping a cop from torturing a mother with young baby during a Santa Cruz anti-war action, some years back when he was in the Frank Little Club.
by Now THERES a vote of support!
Saturday Dec 11th, 2010 8:13 AM
Wow Steve Argue, you have the support of Steve Orcutt?...er, I mean Steve Runninghorse!?

-The same Steve Runninghorse who ta 40-year old ran for student body president at DVC, but then lost the position because he wasn't actually taking enough classes?

-The same Steve Runninghorse charged and convicted in 2005 at age 50 for having sex with a 14 year old, and for possessing child pornography?

-The same Steve who subsequently failed to register as a sex-offender when he returned to DVC?

-Steve who was arrested for battery of a student in 2010?

-Steve whose more commonly called "Runningmouth", and who actually has no native american blood in him?

Steve Argue, I take it back. If you have an endorsement like that ,you MUST be okay.
by Robert Norse
Saturday Dec 11th, 2010 8:35 AM
Still no substantive reply from out-going Mike Rotkin, Vioe-Mayor Ryan Coonerty, or any other member of the "progressive" Santa Cruz City Council.

Just as there is no substantive reply from any of the critics here on the thread.

Any member of the Council can raise the issue as an emergency item on the agenda.

The City Council e-mail is citycouncil [at] citycouncilofsantacruz.com . Let 'em know how you feel.

Or do so more directly as Steve suggests.

Supporting those who are most directly piercing through the propaganda fog of the foreign wars and domestic repression is really far more important than attacking the messengers. If you don't like Steve and me, organize your own protest.

Unless you prefer to watch the war profiteeering and constitution shredding continue.
by Steven Argue
Saturday Dec 11th, 2010 8:59 AM

His name, as far as I know, is actually "Frank Runninghorse", not "Steve Runninghorse".

But hey, you claim to know. Would you care to tell us which of those points you posted were directly from his FBI file (to which you seem to have rapid access) and which are just typical cop / FBI / CIA type smears.

Julian Assange, is, after all, presently the victim of the exact same types of smears.

I also find it funny that there are claims being made that I had no support when I ran for City Council. The struggle for justice is not a popularity contest, but I am far more popular than the claims that have been made. I ran on a radical socialist program, was consistently attacked by the corporate media while Rotkin was supported by them, had very little support from the wealthy as Rotkin had, and still got about 3,000 votes which came close to 15% of people who voted voting for me. That's pretty good for a candidate who ran to tell the truth and who had very little expectation of winning.

Frank asked for some sources on Julian Assange, Wikileaks, and Bradley Manning. Some of the better ones on this I think are Democracy Now!, the Internationalist, and Workers Vanguard. Each of which I have political differences with, but each also have high journalistic standards and have run numerous stories on this subject that have been very good.

Democracy Now!
http://www.democracynow.org/

Workers Vanguard
http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/index.html

Internationalist
http://www.internationalist.org/
by But don't excite yourself
Saturday Dec 11th, 2010 10:55 AM
Rapid access to FBI files? Oh Steve,you've got me bursting with excitement over the whole covert big-brother aspect of this now~! This IS important! The MAN is monitoring it!

Well, sorry to burst that bubble of delusion, but a simple google search of FRANK Runninghorse/Orcutt supplied all that info. in the first links on the list. He has a well documented trail of sludge left in his wake at Diablo Valley, and the local paper there covered it extensively.

So no, not FBI, more like community college weekly.
by Steven Argue
Saturday Dec 11th, 2010 1:52 PM

You sound like a cop, you don't even have the guts to reveal your name when you compile a list from the internet that is most likely slander (or from other sources you would never admit), and you are doing it to smear someone in order to avoid all of the relevant issues.

Sound familiar? That last point is exactly what is being done to Julian Assange.
by Shadow
Saturday Dec 11th, 2010 1:59 PM
Robert says "Still no substantive reply from out-going Mike Rotkin, Vioe-Mayor Ryan Coonerty, or any other member of the "progressive" Santa Cruz City Council."

That's because they don't owe you anything. Just like Monica Martinez, they chose not to engage because they don't have to.

You don't even live in Santa Cruz, so why would council members care what you feel entitled to? They have come to find you irrelevant, because that's where you led them.
by Steven Argue
Saturday Dec 11th, 2010 2:05 PM

Back to the real issue here:

There will be a planning meeting for a protest tomorrow (Sunday Dec. 11) at Sub Rosa at 1:30.

Demands will be:

Immediate freedom for Bradley Manning and Julian Assange! Hands off Wikileaks!

U.S. out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan Now!

Robert Norse and I will also be discussing this on Free Radio Santa Cruz tomorrow (Sunday Dec. 11) at 9:30 AM at 101.1 FM or live streamed at http://www.freakradio.org/

by Seriously Steve
Saturday Dec 11th, 2010 2:48 PM
If I walk like a duck and sound like a duck I must be a duck, or in this case and your opinion, a cop? And you base this on the fact that "when you (I) compile a list from the internet that is most likely slander (or from other sources you would never admit), and you are doing it to smear someone".

Steve, I already tried to explain to you that there was no covert operation, no secret FBI files, no decoder ring; and there is no slander on my part. I told you exactly where I got the info:

-One stop shopping at the first article found under his name with Google. Here, want me to lead you to it so you can find it too?:

http://www.theinquireronline.com/news/student-activist-cited-for-battery-of-asdvc-member-1.1479177

The one article lists every charge against your champion, in a published article. No compiling. No FBI dossiers. No slander. No cops. Nope, just me, doing some googling to find that your biggest supporter is a convicted child molester who couldn't be class president because he wasn't taking classes and failed to register as a sex offender. All found in one quickly perused article.

Mon Dieu Clouseau; I've broken the case! Based on your premise of walk like one talk like one, I'd say you've just outed yourself as a paranoid conspiracy buff who wishes he was more important a radical than he is. Happy Holidays Agent 00-Naught!
by Robert Norse
Saturday Dec 11th, 2010 2:53 PM
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/12/11/18666327.php

Tune in on Free Radio at 9:30 AM and come to the Sub Rosa at 1:30 PM.
by Final post
Saturday Dec 11th, 2010 3:04 PM
Steve,

It's delightfully ironic that your trying to challenge my credibility or guts for remaining anonymous, while at the same time you're championing for Asange, whose support group is accurately named "Anonymous" and proceeds accordingly. *s* (Good for the goose, good for the gander, no?..even if I'm a duck.)

And Sunday is the 12th.
by Steven Argue
Saturday Dec 11th, 2010 5:56 PM
To say there is any parallel between your anonymous slanders that would be government backed, if they are not already, and the anonymous leaks that expose the extensive and extreme war crimes and crimes against humanity by U.S. imperialism is absolutely absurd. While you're anonymously championing the oppressive state by slandering those of us actually doing something with lies, there are others here trying to expose the crimes of these U.S. wars and the crimes against free speech being committed. And the people at WikiLeaks are literally putting their lives and or their futures on the line to do so. You on the other hand…..

Once again, back to what is important here to the people here who actually care about justice:

There will be a planning meeting for a protest tomorrow (Sunday Dec. 12) at Sub Rosa at 1:30.

Demands will be:

Immediate freedom for Bradley Manning and Julian Assange! Hands off Wikileaks!

U.S. out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan Now!

Robert Norse and I will also be discussing this on Free Radio Santa Cruz tomorrow (Sunday Dec. 12) at 9:30 AM at 101.1 FM or live streamed at http://www.freakradio.org/

by Though I said "last post"
Sunday Dec 12th, 2010 7:47 PM
Steve, you say "by slandering those of us actually doing something with lies".

Tell me Steve, which one is a lie?

-That yer friend Runninghorse plead guilty and was charged with unlawful sex with a 14-15 year old, as I posted?

-That he lost his position as DVC president because it was determined that he wasn't taking enough classes, as I posted?

-That he was determined to have not registered as a sex offender as required by law, as I posted?

Serious Question! Which ones of the above do you refute as proven fact? You're good at spewing dogma and rhetoric, but you've now 3 times avoided dealing with the specifics that your chiding me for posting. That's sort of old-school mainstream politics for a purported anti-establishment type. Which of those statements are you calling lies, and based on what facts do you maintain that statement? ( I doubt you have the cojones to answer this question.)

Regardless, I'll tell ya this, "Brother Steve": If you want to crawl into bed with people like that and ignore their vile baggage because their political beliefs match yours, feel free. But if you want to try and portray me as someone whose trying to hide the truth or discredit someones politics by correctly pointing out that they are convicted child molesting scum, then I'm more than ready to reply back to that.

You think overturning the current political situation is important enough to ignore child abuse? Duly noted and your free choice.

You think you can portray my accurate representation of the same fact as disinformation or proof of a police state? Way to show your true colors. "By any means necessary" includes forgiving that crap as long as they support your political beliefs? Ick. Total desperation.

by Steven Argue
Monday Dec 13th, 2010 6:55 AM
The first lie that you wrote was that Runninghorse assaulted a student. He did not. He was arrested for simply passing out literature. The cops want to pretend that he was doing this aggressively and want to pretend that this was assault. These are just typical police lies used to violate free speech.

You find cop accusations that were dutifully rewritten as "facts" by a little student newspaper and pretend you know what happened. And then you pass on those lies when they aren't even relevant to the real issue here which is freeing Bradley Manning and Julian Assange and getting U.S. troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Your smears, like those of Julian Assange, are simply cop lies to distract from the real issues.
by Steven Argue
Monday Dec 13th, 2010 7:09 AM

A Santa Cruz coalition to free Julian Assange and Bradley Manning has been formed.

An informational protest will gather at the Clock Tower on Pacific Avenue on Saturday December 18th from 1:00 PM to 2:30.

And there will be a protest with speakers and a march starting at the Clock Tower on January 8th at 1:00 PM.

Flyers will be available soon. People who want some contact me at steveargue2 [at] yahoo.com.
by And thanks for confirming my point
Monday Dec 13th, 2010 6:32 PM
Steve, by dint of the fact that you've dug into item #1, his assault on a student and attempted to discredit the source as a tatty student newspaper (clearly not a highbrow publication like Indy or Street Spirit) while passing on the opportunity to discredit the charges of sex with a minor, ownership of child pornography, failure to register as a sex offender, and having run for student body president while ineligible.....I"ll assume that you agree the others are credible charges that you don't care to try to refute as lies.

And as such, I'll stick with my stand: You're in bed with scum. And if you're willing to disregard crimes such as that simply because his political bent matches yours....Ick. But am I surprised? Nope.

Rally your cause, but don't try to your disinformation game on me. I'm no cop. I'm rather someone who disagrees with your political view on this issue and thinks you've partnered with a pariah. The fact that you can't acknowledge that simple reality and instead revert to attempts to discredit me as an FBI agent or portray my reporting of the proven/printed/convicted truth about your compadre speaks more eloquently as to your agenda and character than any words on my own part could.
by Steven Argue
Monday Dec 13th, 2010 7:11 PM
As people who are familiar with the criminal injustice system can tell you, there is no such thing as a fair trial in America's capitalist courts. Especially for the poor, people of color, and leftists. Frank Runninghorse is all three. Police accusations and even convictions are no indication of guilt. And just because some little student newspaper repeats what the cops have told them about convictions that may or may not have happened doesn't mean a thing in terms of the hard work that brother Frank Runninghorse does in the struggle for a better world.

Even if he did do any of the things alleged of him years ago by this little student paper, like having sex with a teenager; and that’s a big if, that was something that he has already paid for and is not relevant to any of the issues we are talking about. Nor does my lack of interest in jumping in on your witch hunt against everyone who supports me reflect anything about me or those of us trying to end these horrible wars and free Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. You should try to speak to the issues here instead of spreading slander from unreliable sources.

And as I pointed out earlier, this has nothing to do with the planned protest.

In addition, it is a lie to say he assaulted a student. As I pointed out earlier:

The first lie that you wrote was that Runninghorse assaulted a student. He did not. He was arrested for simply passing out literature. The cops want to pretend that he was doing this aggressively and want to pretend that this was assault. These are just typical police lies used to violate free speech.

You find cop accusations that were dutifully rewritten as "facts" by a little student newspaper and pretend you know what happened. And then you pass on those lies when they aren't even relevant to the real issue here which is freeing Bradley Manning and Julian Assange and getting U.S. troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Your smears, like those of Julian Assange, are simply cop lies to distract from the real issues.

by Steven Argue
Monday Dec 13th, 2010 7:13 PM
A Santa Cruz coalition to free Julian Assange and Bradley Manning has been formed.

An informational protest will gather at the Clock Tower on Pacific Avenue on Saturday December 18th from 1:00 PM to 2:30.

And there will be a protest with speakers and a march starting at the Clock Tower on January 8th at 1:00 PM.

Flyers will be available soon. People who want some contact me at steveargue2 [at] yahoo.com.

by Saddened
Monday Dec 13th, 2010 7:28 PM
Steven Argue wrote:

"Remember that speech of mine you interrupted? The one where I called for a higher minimum wage in Santa Cruz? I do. You claimed that it was legally impossible for a municipality to raise the minimum wage and you went on to claim that if you could, the City Council would have done it long ago. Both points were lies. This was proven when a proposition for a higher minimum wage in Santa Cruz was put on the city ballot and you and your rightwing friends at the Santa Cruz Sentinel campaigned against it."

Does Rotkin have no Shame?

And his friends tell us that we have no right to expect anything for the Wikileaks people from Rotkin.

I sort of thought Rotkin was OK, wow was I mistaken.

Thanks for organizing the protest Steve. I'll see you there.

by Steve, yer killing me!
Monday Dec 13th, 2010 7:28 PM
"This little student paper" coming from a guy who used to vend the Street Spirit?! *lol* Pot calling kettle much!?

by Robert Norse
Tuesday Dec 14th, 2010 7:35 AM
Though I never got a specific and timely response from the Mayor last week, Steve Argue got this e-mail, from Rotkin yesterday.

Forwarded Message ----
From: Mike Rotkin
Steven R. Argue
Cc: City Council
Sent: Mon, December 13, 2010 8:45:59 PM
Subject: Re: Wikileaks

Just so you know exactly where I am at, I only have tomorrow afternoon as my last council meeting before being termed out. if you can get any other council member to agree to try and add this as an emergency item tomorrow, I'd be happy to second the motion. You need a supermajority to add something as an emergency, or five votes. I don't think it is very likely to happen and I think you would be making a very big mistake to try this and then fail. You need to call people and count votes until you reach 5. So you have about half a day to do a lot of work to find four more votes and get clear on exactly what the resolution is that you'd like to see passed (and that five members will support).

No need to waste time talking to me. Anything that four others will support will be fine with me. I suspect you will find that as a "fake progressive," I am closer to your position than anyone else on the council. Or, you could take the time to do an organized campaign, do some actual public education about the Wikileaks issue (not just have a protest with the usual suspects), so that a larger group of local citizens asks the Council to step up on this matter. That would mean taking some action in January or later and I doubt that this issue will be gone by then. Unfortunately, the left in this town has gotten quite lazy when it comes to actually doing outreach to the people that don't already agree with us or even to actually mobilize the people who do. It's just been too easy to go to the City Council and have them respond with a resolution on these national/international issues, so nobody wants to bother to actually go out and do some real organizing and education. But I'm sincere. Find the other votes you need and count on mine.

mike
by Steven Argue
Tuesday Dec 14th, 2010 8:36 AM
Mike Rotkin is wrong on a number of points here, including arguing that protests aren't the very important form of public education they are. And he wrongly assumes these upcoming protests will just be the "usual suspects". But he did take a step forward in saying he would second the motion if another City Council member makes it.
by At the Clock
Tuesday Dec 14th, 2010 8:40 AM
...I expect the usual small crew.
by Steven Argue
Tuesday Dec 14th, 2010 12:22 PM
This coming Saturday will be smaller than the main event on January 8th which I think will be a big event. When I decide to do something I tend to do some pretty good out-reach. Those who insist on crapping on something rather than making sure such dire predictions don't come true never cease to bore me with their lack of vision.
by That big!?
Tuesday Dec 14th, 2010 4:09 PM
I don't think so, on either count. But time will tell.

Hey, can you show me any links to that protest in support of you in France? So far, the only evidence I see is a self-penned piece in Street Spirit, but we both know how untrustworthy those little papers are...
by Steven Arguue
Tuesday Dec 14th, 2010 11:36 PM
There was no self-penned piece by me about the support I got in France. Once Again you are lying.

I did save a woman and child at a May 22 protest against the U.S. bombing of Serbia from a violent police assault. This assault was carried out under the rule of the fake leftist Rotkinites. That cop that I dealt with was subsequently found, by a Santa Cruz government body, to have used excessive force against the woman and child and was removed from the Santa Cruz Police.

The only reason we got a positive response to some degree, and some degree of justice, minus my unfair prosecution, was due to public pressure due to people knowing the truth.

In addition, the Workers' party of France did support me and threw demonstrations for me. Eight hundred people is small compared to the force of that party that, in no uncertain terms, gave me full backing. They have also played a major role in leading the general strikes in France. You say an 800 person demonstration was reported. I don’t remember it, didn’t write it, but have little doubt that this probably did happen, and if Street Spirit reported it, it was true. It does completely fit with everything that was going on and there is absolutely no reason to doubt its validity.

Likewise, the multi-million member Bangledeshi textile union backed me along with others around the world. This is all real and verifiable despite your desire to dismiss it.

Just because small minded Rotkinites want to pretend the entire world ignores the injustices they perpetrate, doesn’t mean that there aren’t real people in the world that oppose their evil policies.
by Steven Argue
Wednesday Dec 15th, 2010 10:53 AM
And there is no comparison between that little student newspaper and Street Spirit. That student paper passed on cop lies that were used to violate free speech rights. Street Spirit, on the other hand, questions police accounts and defends the first amendment right to free speech:

For instance, Street Spirit told the truth when I was arrested, beaten, and jailed for four days for selling newspapers.

With their support and the support of many others in the community I was able to win back freedom of press in Santa Cruz, despite the attempts of the "progressive" Santa Cruz city government to crush it.
by Basha
Wednesday Dec 15th, 2010 1:12 PM
Isn't it true that The Street Spirit fired Becky Johnson?

I think she was a self proclaimed ace reporter with them until she said some not so nice things about Palestinians or something and they gave her the boot.
by Where's your evidence?
Wednesday Dec 15th, 2010 3:26 PM
The student paper has a direct quote from the student who complained of being assaulted. That's not passing along cop lies. Or does your version of "freedom of the press" only extend to publications/issues which share your political leaning?


And while we're on the subject of accurate reporting? You got 2,362 votes, not "almost 3,000". Puffery, similar to your contention that you won back freedom of the press. Puhleeze; get over yourself.
by Robert Norse
Wednesday Dec 15th, 2010 11:25 PM
I spoke to outgoing Mayor Rotkin at the Tuesday City Council meeting, asking him why he'd never responded to the e-mail I sent him requesting a Berkeley-like resolution. And I gave some of the speech at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/12/14/18666598.php , which mentions Rotkin's failure in the last paragraph.

It would be great to find some Bradley Mannings and Julian Assanges here in Santa Cruz.
by Steven Argue
Thursday Dec 16th, 2010 5:26 AM
The anonoymous Rotkinite writes, "And while we're on the subject of accurate reporting? You got 2,362 votes, not "almost 3,000". Puffery, similar to your contention that you won back freedom of the press. Puhleeze; get over yourself."

Once again you are writing from ignorance in your attempts to discredit me. What I said was correct. In the two times that I ran for City Council I've never gotten only 2,362 votes. And in 2000 I got close to 3,000 votes.

by Steven Argue
Thursday Dec 16th, 2010 5:40 AM
The anonymous Rotkinite writes, "The student paper has a direct quote from the student who complained of being assaulted."

Both charges against Frank Runninghorse were immediately dropped, their primary purpose to publicly smear him on the front page of the campus newspaper having already been accomplished. It was a dirty trick political attack against SDS and Frank Runninghorse. That student was a campus Republican working with the cops on the smear campaign. These campus Republicans were part of an undemocratic power grab against an SDS student council election victory.
by The truth hurts.
Thursday Dec 16th, 2010 7:48 AM
So Steve, I'm making up lies when I say you got 2,362 votes? You say I'm "writing from ignorance in your attempts to discredit me. What I said was correct. In the two times that I ran for City Council I've never gotten only 2,362 votes. And in 2000 I got close to 3,000 votes.".

Okay, maybe I was wrong. Maybe the source of information was incorrect or a lie.....BUT THE SOURCE IS YOU. *lol*

===
Some Santa Cruz Election Results
Updated Results
10 Nov 2002
Date Edited: 10 Nov 2002 06:22:00 AM
by Steve Argue
Vote For: 3

Completed Precincts: 42 of 42

Vote Count Percentage

(X) Mike Rotkin 9,616 60.6%
(X) Cynthia Mathews 9,149 56.9%
(X) Tim Fitzmaurice 6,482 40.8%
Aldo Giacchino 4,933 31.2%
Karen Woblesky 3,661 23.1%
Greg Lopez 3,045 19.2%
Steve Argue 2,362 15.0%
Thomas Leavitt 2,082 13.2%
Connie Thomasser 1,842 11.7%
Phil Baer 1,830 11.7%
David G. Eselius 1,763 11.1%
Jeromy McMillan 688 4.2%
Write-in candidate(s) 57 0.3%

(http://santacruz.indymedia.org/mod/comments/display/2406/index.php)


...teach me to believe a liar.
by Steven Argue
Thursday Dec 16th, 2010 9:29 AM
Once again, I ran twice and got close to 3,000 votes in one race. Despite your false claims of me lying, that is the truth.

In the other race that you are citing I got fewer votes, but not as few as you said. I got 2,593 votes in that election. You cite me as your source for that election. What I reported was directly from the official results site for the county. Those numbers were, however, later revised at the same site that I got my numbers from, and the revised numbers gave me more votes.

Perhaps being made to look like a fool over and over again should cause you to slow down and ask questions before you falsely accuse me of being a liar. What I said was true. I got close to 3,000 votes in the 2000 election. But then again, getting to the truth really isn't your game is it? What you are trying to do is shoot down the credibility of the messenger regarding Rotkin, Bush, Obama et al, but you are failing miserably. What you are, however, unfortunately succeeding in doing is distracting from the real issues.

by Other than your own contradictary post?
Thursday Dec 16th, 2010 6:19 PM

" I got 2,593 votes in that election. You cite me as your source for that election. What I reported was directly from the official results site for the county. Those numbers were, however, later revised at the same site that I got my numbers from, and the revised numbers gave me more votes."

Yes, I did cite you as the source; and you were. And how DARE I use you as a credible source for accurate information? It wasn't I who said you got 2,362 votes Steve, it was you. Do you see the difference, and the irony? I'm posting YOUR quotes. YOUR statistics. So if there is any mistake, it's on your part.

But you say you (I) was wrong. Those numbers posted by you (!) are incorrect. Can you prove that? Have a link to substantiate your claim? The thing is I couldn't find a higher number, but the 2,362, posted by you, was easily discovered.

Keep posting Steve. Your posts do more to show your actual credibility and habit of throwing out bombastic statements without any credible proof far, far more effectively than I could do on my own.
by r
Thursday Dec 16th, 2010 10:00 PM
I must say, Argue, that, with a name like yours, I expected a significant antagonist. I'm very disappointed in your debate skills. It's like you went to Becky Johnson's Classical Debate School or something. C'mon man. Buck up give me a reason to believe again.
Once again, I ran twice and got close to 3,000 votes in one race. Despite your false claims of me lying about that, that is the truth.

Regarding the higher numbers I got in the other election, I already told you my source and it is easily found, but here is the link you requested:

http://www.votescount.com/nov2k2/result2.htm


Here is an article I wrote back then explaining why I ran:

HOMELESSNESS AND POLITICAL REPRESSION, THE GREEN PARTY & DEMOCRATS FAIL THE TEST IN SANTA CRUZ.

By STEVE ARGUE
Green Party City Council Person Tim Fitzmaurice and "progressive" Democrats Christopher Krohn and Keith Sugar were swept into office out of a ground swell of opposition to plans for expansion of the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk in 1998.

At that time many had the illusion that these three were going to over turn the cities sleeping ban (a city law making it illegal for the homeless to sleep at night), and confront the repressive nature of the Santa Cruz Police Department. Those illusions were soon shattered.

During Tim Fitzmaurice's past three years in office he has opposed lifting the sleeping ban. In 1998 the City Council was under public pressure to end the sleeping ban. At that time Fitzmaurice did support a successful measure that lowered the fine for sleeping outside or in a vehicle from $162 to $54. But Fitzmaurice voted with the majority on the council against lifting the sleeping ban. The vote was Sugar and Krohn for lifting the sleeping ban, Fitzmaurice, Biers, Rotkin, and Hernandez against.

This year (2001) when newly elected Council Member (D) Ed Porter tried to bring the issue up for discussion Mayor Fitzmaurice broke the rules of city hall by vetoing the discussion. Porter, in a Gore like fashion, did not fight the violation of democracy.

Fitzmaurice's stand against the rights of the homeless is in clear violation of the platform of the Green Party, which opposes anti-homeless laws. Because of this fact Green Party member Robert Norse has pushed for the Green Party of Santa Cruz to hold Tim Fitzmaurice accountable. Yet instead of the Green Party officially distancing themselves from Tim Fitzmaurice for his policies against the homeless they have demonized Robert Norse for criticizing their beloved Green Party mayor. Many of these attacks on Robert Norse are of a personal nature despite their clear political motivations.

It is the obligation of any political party to hold those they elect to power to the positions of the membership of the party. If a political party does not do so its political platform is only worth so much toilet paper. This has been the case of the Democrat Party for years. It is the case with the past three years of Green Party power in Santa Cruz as well. If the Green Party truly represented change it would kick Fitzmaurice out of the party for his violations of party policy and violations of human rights, rather than defending him.

The anti-activist and anti-homeless nature of the Santa Cruz Police has been there since before the Green Party took office. In the 1980s the Santa Cruz Police, according to court testimony of fellow officers, carried out beatings of homeless people they called operation code blue over their radios. What code blue meant was that officers were to arrive on the scene where they beat homeless people to death.

Sandy Loranger did jail time for feeding the homeless soup. When the judge offered her counseling instead of jail Sandy Loranger replied, "If feeding my fellow man is a crime, I am beyond rehabilitation." Film footage shows B.D. was tackled and pepper sprayed by Santa Cruz Police when he was merely giving a speech for the rights of the homeless on a downtown sidewalk. In a similar manner film footage shows Jim Cosner was tackled down and arrested for taping up a poster of political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal on a downtown fence.

The repression and abuses have continued since the election of Fitzmaurice, but the Green Party in office has done nothing to stop them.

One year before the election of Fitzmaurice homeless and anti-police brutality activist John Dine was shot and killed by Santa Cruz Police Officer Connor Carey. The claim by Police Chief Belcher was that John Dine was pointing a toy gun at the officer before he was shot. Yet none of the many independent eyewitnesses backed up that claim.

Even the Citizen's Police Review Board (appointed by the City Council) recognized that John Dine was not pointing a gun. Yet the Citizen's Police Review Board (CPRB) claimed not to be contradicting Chief Belcher in their findings despite telling an entirely different story.

The CPRB's report stated that the shooting of John Dine was justified because he was reaching for what appeared to be a gun. Because of activism, too much of the truth had gotten out to the public for the CPRB to stick with Chief Belcher's version of a pointed gun, but they continued the cover-up with this new falsified version of events where John Dine is supposedly reaching for what appears to be a gun. The independent eyewitnesses refuted this CPRB version of events as well.

Some of the eyewitnesses had become so upset about the cover-up by the city government, DA, and the corporate media that they became activists in trying to get out the truth and punish those responsible.

The Santa Cruz Sentinel, one of the main corporate newspapers in Santa Cruz, continues to refer to John Dine as "a deranged man who was pointing a toy gun at police".

On November 12, 1998, the one-year anniversary of the police murder of John Dine, a protest 100 people was organized demanding an end to the cover-up. Speakers at that event included newly elected City Council Persons Christopher Krohn and Keith Sugar along with myself. The following day a photo of all three standing in front of the demonstrators was prominently displayed on page 2 of the Santa Cruz Sentinel.

That same day, November 13th, I was brutalized and arrested by Santa Cruz Police Officer Garner. The pretext for arrest was that I was selling newspapers without a license. Yet the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is very clear about protecting freedom of press. It states, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." In fact the city law, on paper anyway, also allows the selling of newspapers. Officer Garner's request for a license brings my arrest and beating to the level of absurdity because the city does not even have a license that it issues for selling newspapers in the first place.

Up until November of 1998 the police regularly harassed and at times ticketed those who distributed more truthful news than can be found in the corporate media. Those papers include the newspaper Street Spirit which advocates human rights for the homeless, various socialist papers, and the revolutionary unionist paper: The Industrial Worker.

I was released without charges after four days in jail and after being brutalized by arresting officers on the street, and also being beaten by sheriffs in the county jail. In addition Christopher Krohn and Keith Sugar were criticized in an editorial in the Santa Cruz Sentinel for their participation in the November 12th demonstration. After facing that criticism Krohn and Sugar shut their mouths about police brutality, including in the cases of John Dine and myself.

I, on the other hand, knowing that freedoms have to be fought for, was back out on the street selling newspapers immediately after my release from jail. I also spoke out on the radio, TV, and in the newspapers for freedom of press. As a result of my actions and other activists publicizing the case, the police have, for the most part, stopped violating the right of people to buy and sell newspapers in the City of Santa Cruz. The one exception I know of was in 2000 when I was once again threatened with arrest for selling newspapers. I refused to back down and eventually the police backed down instead.

My attorney, Kate Wells, and I have also filed a lawsuit in federal court for the Cities violations of the constitutional rights of the people of Santa Cruz to free speech. The attorney for the City, who works for the Green / Democrat City Council, is arguing that it is not legal to sell newspapers in Santa Cruz. A Federal Judge, however, has ruled that not only was my arrest a clear violation of constitutional rights, but that the way the City is trying to defend its actions now shows that it is City policy to violate constitutional rights. The City attorney's office, again under the control of the Green / Democrat City Council, is appealing the ruling and continuing to argue against the First Amendment Constitutional right to freedom of press.

Green Party Council Person Tim Fitzmaurice along with Krohn and Sugar did nothing to defend freedom of press when I was arrested. In fact Fitzmaurice's appointee to the so-called Citizen's Police Review Board, Green Party member Arne Leff, voted that the police acted properly in arresting me for selling newspapers.

The Green Party of Santa Cruz moved further in the 2000 elections in their opposition to freedom of press. They endorsed Arne Leff in his run for city council.

These are not small questions. They involve the protection, or not, of the most fundamental free speech rights. Freedom of press is difficult enough in America as it is without arrest because of the lack of advertising and accompanied low budgets that those who try to get out the truth have to deal with. John Dine can no longer pass out flyers or participate in protests to end the sleeping ban because he is dead. The fact that Connor Carey is still on the police force, serves as a powerful warning to other would be homeless activists that they may die for their convictions.

The silence of the City Council only helped to promote this repressive atmosphere. The City Council is the boss of the police through City Manager Dick Wilson, who they have the authority to fire. Repressive and murderous cops have to be taught that there are consequences for their crimes.

Other activists for the rights of the homeless have had their rights trampled by the police under the past three years of Green Party / Democrat Party rule in Santa Cruz as well. These have included James Nay who was arrested for writing things in chalk on the sidewalk opposing the sleeping ban, and David Silva who was arrested and given a psychiatric evaluation for asking City Council, "What's it going to take, self emollition to end the sleeping ban?"

Activist for the homeless, Robert Norse, was illegally arrested on September 19th and on October 3rd for circulating a petition at the Farmer's Market asking for an end to police harassment of musicians, artisans, and activists by the Santa Cruz Police at the Farmer's Market. The Farmer's Market is held in a publicly owned parking lot and as a public gathering space courts have ruled even on private property such as malls, that the First Amendment still applies. The need for the petition was partially inspired by the threat of police to arrest peace activist John Theilking for a literature table he had set up on September 5th.

Judge Stevens later dropped the charges against Robert Norse in court along with dismissing the attempt at an injunction against him, but the arrests were another clear violation of the free speech rights of the people of Santa Cruz. These arrests have been coupled with the Green / Democrat City Government's blatant fencing off of most of the areas that used to be used for free speech tables at the Farmer's Market.

Activists regularly pass out fliers, set up literature tables, and circulate petitions at the Farmer's Market for many causes. In 1999 rent control activist Bob Lamonica and activists for freeing U.S. political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal were threatened with ticketing and potential arrest by Officer Howes. Activists for both causes spoke out against the violation of their rights, and in the following weeks they defiantly set up literature tables and were left alone.

Coupled with these blatant attacks on free speech is constant low intensity warfare of harassment against human rights activists, the homeless, and street artisans and musicians. As the police often say to their victims, "This is Santa Cruz, we can find a law for anything." In 2000 Robert Norse was ticketed for sitting at the base of Tom Scribner's Statue. Charges were later dropped when he produced a photo of City Council members doing the same thing. K.C., who has attended a number of demonstrations, was ticketed for blowing bubbles, which the officer claimed were projectiles being thrown into traffic. That charge was dropped when it made the national news.

When dealing with the homeless the police often illegally steal backpacks, vehicles, and identification. The police confiscations of identification have now become especially serious with the Cities emergency shelter program through the National Guard Armory now requiring identification to be admitted into emergency winter shelter. There is no Santa Cruz emergency shelter in the summer except that which takes months to get into and only lasts one month. The new rule gives the police one more opportunity to victimize the homeless. The new rule also victimizes undocumented immigrants who may need emergency shelter.

Santa Cruz Police have stopped me five times under the manufactured pretext of j walking, which carries a heavy fine. One of those tickets was thrown out of court and I was later arrested for another I refused to pay. The police also took my car without legitimate legal pretext and arrested me that same day for watching, without intervening, the police hassle a homeless man. I never got my car back, but the charge for witnessing police misconduct and then becoming a victim of it myself was thrown out of court, after a tape of the incident made by activist and Free Radio DJ Vinny Lombardo was played for the judge. While this harassment was taking place, according to witnesses, a photo of myself with drawn in wire rimmed glasses and a goatee was hanging on the police station wall.

Emboldened by years of repression and harassment against the homeless and activists dealing with local issues, the Santa Cruz Police attacked anti-war protesters on May 22, 1999. By Sgt. MacMahon's own admission it was a lawful protest until the police intervened. The protest was against the US bombing of Yugoslavia. The target of the protest was a Democrat Party fundraiser where Democrat Representative Sam Farr was giving a speech. Sam Farr had the nerve to vote for the war and then turn around and say on the news "Give peace a chance." Protesters were demanding an end to the war and exposing Sam Farr's real policies. Police brutalized protesters and five were arrested.

One of the main culprits in the attack was Officer David LaFavor. He had stated a couple years earlier to activist David Silva that it was his goal to clean the scum off of the streets of Santa Cruz. When asked who the scum were he listed the homeless, political activists, and street musicians. David Silva warned the City Council about LaFavor at that time.

The first person arrested, without reason, was Kao Ling Lao. The charge against her, Disturbing the Peace, was later thrown out of court. She was grabbed by police and taken through the crowd to a waiting patty-wagon. Angry protesters wanted to know what she was arrested for and followed the police to the patty-wagon, which they peacefully surrounded and blocked its exit. As if to inflame the protesters to react with another provocation, the police then went after the only two people in the crowd who were carrying small children.

Videotape shows Officer LaFavor passing up other protesters and walking up to Julien who is holding her four-year old child. LaFavor immediately grabbed Julien's wrist and put her in a pain compliance hold. A man with an infant was also grabbed by Officer LaMoss. Officer LaFavor then drags Julien around the patty-wagon and stops in front of me with Julien's child screaming in fear and Julien screaming in pain, her hand turned purple from the pain compliance hold. I demanded that LaFavor stop torturing the woman. LaFavor did not comply with my reasonable commands. I then used the force necessary to stop the crime he was carrying out, I punched LaFavor in the nose. Julien and her child were then able to escape.

Nassim Zarriffi stepped in against the other case of police child abuse, where he came up from behind and pulled LaMoss's arm up saying, "You're hurting the baby," in a situation where the baby was getting pressed in between the arresting officer and the father. The father and child were then also able to escape as the police turned on Nassim Zarriffi. He was charged with Misdemeanor Assault on an Officer and Misdemeanor Resisting Arrest, I was charged with Felony Assault and Battery on an Officer and Misdemeanor Resisting Arrest. In addition Jim Cosner and Vinny Lombardo were charged with Resisting Arrest. The arrested became known as the Santa Cruz 5 and gained support in Santa Cruz, around the country, and around the world.

Due to massive pressure demanding justice, the Citizen's Police Review Board found that excessive force was used against Julien that endangered her child, and against myself when I was arrested. Despite these facts I was convicted in court due to the actions of a hostile judge, Judge Attack, the incompetence of my attorney, Ben Rice, and the conservative nature of the jury. I endured 7 months in the Santa Cruz County Jail where I was beaten by guards and faced other abuses from authorities.

Officer Lafavor no longer works for the City Government. According to a source in the City Government LaFavor was given the choice of being fired or resigning. He has, however, after resigning gotten a job in another police department.

Today the slander against the May 22 demonstration continues on the national TV show called "Great Police Chases." They have repeatedly shown falsified video completely out of sequence showing me punching LaFavor, but removing the video of Julien and her child before the punch and replacing it with other video of Officer LaFavor. The show, after deliberately falsifying the events of the demonstration also mocks the protesters for being pacifists. Opposing America's unjust wars and bombing of civilians does not necessarily make one a pacifist.

When I ran for City Council the Santa Cruz Sentinel repeatedly referred to me as "the cop puncher" while other candidates like Arne Leff were referred to by their professions. In this context Arne Leff would more appropriately have been called the constitution crusher.

Despite the clear video tapes showing the violence and abuses of the police, no member of the Green / Democrat City Council ever took any action on behalf of the Santa Cruz 5 and the right to protest while we were still facing charges. Fitzmaurice's silence can be contrasted to the decision of the membership of the Green Party to put out a statement demanding the charges against me be dropped and LaFavor be fired.

Will the Green Party be hi-jacked nation wide by opportunist career politicians who protect the status quo while the majority of membership is unwilling to make any significant moves to hold them accountable? The experience in Santa Cruz suggests it will.

The unwillingness of the Green Party to seriously take on police abuses and anti-poor laws with their position of power reflects a petty bourgeois reformist outlook, rather than a revolutionary outlook of the poor and working class. The program of the Green Party sees the owners of small businesses as the counter weight to evil multi-national corporations and see their maximum program as one where small businesses are the base of the economy. The reality in Santa Cruz is that most of these small business owners are the biggest proponents of anti-homeless laws and the culprits in paying some of the lowest wages that cause homelessness.

In opposition I promote methods of class struggle against all exploiters who trample on the rights of the poor and working class whether they be big or small. I call for doubling the minimum wage. Any business that can't pay a living wage should be driven under. I call for rent control to curb the gouging of the landlords. I call for firing the city manager, the chief of police, and Officer Connor Carey as a first step towards curbing police abuse. I call for an end to anti-homeless laws. I call for the city employee's living wage to be extended to part time employees paid for with cuts in the six digit salaries of the likes of Dick Wilson. I call for the unity of working and poor people against the bosses and their government and call for an end to all racist, sexist, and homophobic policies. I oppose US wars to subjugate the people of the world to U.S. corporate interests. I oppose the degradation of the planets ecology for the profits of the capitalists. I support the people in organizing unions, strikes, demonstrations, alternative media, and anti-capitalist and worker's political parties to take on the power of the capitalist system.

It is on this platform I ran for office while being homeless in 2000 and received close to 3,000 votes, and it is on this platform I may run again in 2002. This was very respectable given the fact that 3 of the winners only got around 8,000 votes and did it with much more money. But whether I run or not, and whether I win or not, change will only come through all who are fed up with the system taking an active role in making change.
by 15% or 4.9% 3,000 or 2,593 or 2,362?
Friday Dec 17th, 2010 6:13 PM
The first post you made on Nov. 10 claimed you got 2,362 votes, or. 15.0% of the votes.

Your latest post, dated Nov. 23, ups that total of votes to 2,593 , but lowers your percentage to 4.9%.

Said it before and say it again: something isn't adding up, and it's you posting the stats.

(And maybe I am splitting hairs, but 2,593 still isn't almost 3,000 in my calculator....about 15% off of that. Puffy.)
by Steven Argue
Saturday Dec 18th, 2010 10:26 AM
Obviously, the "about 15% of voters voted for me" makes mathematical sense when one looks at the fact that most voters voted for three candidates.

And once again, I ran twice and got close to 3,000 votes in one race. Despite your false claims of me lying about that, and despite your lack of apology, that is the truth.

Perhaps being made to look like a fool over and over again should cause you to slow down and ask questions before you falsely accuse me of being a liar. What I said was true. I got close to 3,000 votes in the 2000 election. But then again, getting to the truth really isn't your game is it? What you are trying to do is shoot down the credibility of the messenger regarding Rotkin, Bush, Obama et al, but you are failing miserably. What you are, however, unfortunately succeeding in doing is distracting from the real issues.

by s
Saturday Dec 18th, 2010 1:36 PM
Thanks for reposting that article, Argue. I recall it vividly. Specifically, I recall thinking, when I saw it, "Jesus Christ, is that Argue one douchy windbag!" The term "fuckwad" and "dickweed" also came to mind, as I recall, but I may be wrong on that last one.

Anyways, nice trip down memory lane.
by Steven Argue
Sunday Dec 19th, 2010 4:30 AM
Just knowing you appreciated it so much makes the pleasure all mine.